Patanjali Ayurved’s Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna, tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court, expressing regret over the company’s misleading advertisements that questioned the efficacy of modern medicine. The apology, offered a day after the court summoned Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev, comes amidst escalating scrutiny over the company’s promotional strategies.
The controversy erupted when Patanjali’s advertising campaigns cast doubts on the effectiveness of conventional medical treatments. In response to the court’s directive, Balkrishna’s affidavit 
not only acknowledged the company’s regret over the dissemination of such advertisements but also highlighted the perceived obsolescence of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
The affidavit termed the aforementioned legislation as “archaic,” pointing out that it had not been updated since 1996. Balkrishna argued that at the time of its enactment, scientific evidence in support of Ayurveda research was lacking. Nevertheless, he emphasized that Patanjali’s current product lineup was underpinned by evidence-based scientific data, derived from clinical research in Ayurveda.
The court’s intervention followed a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), seeking to restrain Patanjali from disseminating what it deemed “false and misleading” claims regarding disease cures, while portraying modern medicine in a negative light. The apex court’s order underscored the seriousness with which such matters are viewed, particularly concerning public health and consumer welfare.
Patanjali’s affidavit
In his affidavit, Balkrishna expressed remorse for the inclusion of “offending sentences” in the advertisements, attributing it to inadvertence. He assured the court that the company would refrain from issuing similar advertisements in the future and clarified that the publicity department responsible for the ads was unaware of the court’s directives.
Additionally, the affidavit hinted at Patanjali’s purported possession of evidence-based scientific data, aimed at demonstrating advancements made in Ayurvedic research vis-à-vis diseases listed in the 1954 Act. However, the specifics of this scientific data remain unclear, raising questions about its verifiability and applicability within the regulatory framework.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of Patanjali’s advertisements reflects a broader concern over the regulation of commercial claims, especially those pertaining to healthcare products. As the legal proceedings unfold, stakeholders await clarity on the balance between commercial freedom and public health imperatives within India’s regulatory landscape.
As the case progresses, the spotlight remains on the accountability of corporations in ensuring responsible advertising practices and the efficacy of regulatory mechanisms in safeguarding consumer interests.
